Audi RS e-tron GT vs Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe
Compare the Audi RS e-tron GT vs Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe. The Audi RS e-tron GT is £30,000 cheaper. The Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe is 0.1s quicker to 60mph. The Audi RS e-tron GT is more fuel efficient. Full performance, cost & ownership breakdown.
The Audi RS e-tron GT is priced from £125,000, powered by a Dual Electric Motors, producing 637 hp, with 830 Nm of torque, reaching 0-62 mph in 3.3 s, a top speed of 155 mph, sent to the road via all-wheel drive. The Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe is priced from £155,000, powered by a 4.0L Twin-Turbo V8, producing 577 hp, with 800 Nm of torque, reaching 0-62 mph in 3.2 s, a top speed of 196 mph, sent to the road via all-wheel drive.
The Audi RS e-tron GT offers a 350-litre boot, a usable front boot, folding rear seats, runs on electric, returns around 76 mpg, is covered by a 3 years / 60,000 miles (original UK cover; first 2 years unlimited) warranty. The Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe offers a 321-litre boot, runs on petrol, returns around 22 mpg, is covered by a 3 years / unlimited miles (original UK new-car cover) warranty.
On cost of ownership, the Audi RS e-tron GT is £30,000 cheaper than its rival, the Audi RS e-tron GT costs less in annual maintenance (£1,000 versus £1,600), the Audi RS e-tron GT is the more fuel-efficient choice, the Audi RS e-tron GT has 83.7 kWh usable battery · 93.4 kWh gross battery, the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe has 70 L fuel tank.
Driving Character: Audi RS e-tron GT vs Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe
The RS e-tron GT leverages 637 hp and instant electric torque to deliver breathtaking acceleration, pinning occupants to their seats with brutal efficiency. The low centre of gravity provided by the battery pack ensures the car remains impressively flat through corners, though the sheer weight of 5139 lbs is occasionally felt in tighter, technical transitions. It lacks the raw, emotive soundtrack of a combustion-engined rival, but compensates with a refined, futuristic chassis that makes covering ground effortless. The two-speed rear gearbox provides a unique mechanical feel, bridging the gap between electric immediacy and high-speed stability.
The C192 AMG GT63 Coupe uses a 430 kW twin-turbo 4.0-litre V8, delivering 800 Nm through AMG Performance 4MATIC+ all-wheel drive and a nine-speed MCT transmission. Active rear-wheel steering and active roll control support its chassis. The manufacturer quotes 3.2 seconds from 0 to 100 km/h; this must not be presented as a 0-60 mph measurement.
Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Audi RS e-tron GT — Dual-motor EV with 637hp; 0–100 in 3.1s with silent, relentless delivery; the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe — AMG 4.0L bi-turbo V8; exceptional throttle response and emotional delivery. Characteristic of the Audi RS e-tron GT: Four-wheel steering available; actively improves cornering and parking ease. For the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe: AMG Performance 4MATIC+ all-wheel drive, active rear-wheel steering and active roll control support the C192 chassis. In outright terms it is 637 hp against 577 — a 60 hp gap — and the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe reaches 60 mph 0.1s sooner.
Interior & Cabin: Audi RS e-tron GT vs Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe
The interior is a high-tech sanctuary, dominated by a driver-focused dashboard and the crisp Audi Virtual Cockpit. Sustainable materials are used throughout, reflecting a modern approach to luxury without compromising on build quality or feel. The digital interfaces are intuitive, though the reliance on touch-sensitive controls for certain functions can be less tactile than physical buttons while on the move. Space is ample for four adults, and the dual-screen setup creates a sophisticated, connected environment that feels perfectly suited for a high-performance electric tourer. It is a cabin that successfully blends traditional Audi craftsmanship with progressive, forward-thinking technology.
The C192 cabin combines a digital instrument display with an 11.9-inch portrait central touchscreen running MBUX. AMG sports seats are standard; Performance seats are optional. The optional rear seats create a 2+2 layout rather than full-size rear passenger accommodation.
Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Audi RS e-tron GT — Curved OLED display and digital interior class-leading at launch; the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe — Long bonnet, short tail design creates distinct, dramatic driving environment. Characteristic of the Audi RS e-tron GT: Four adult seats with genuine rear legroom; premium EV four-door. For the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe: AMG sports seats are standard; Performance seats are optional.
Daily Usability: Audi RS e-tron GT vs Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe
Practicality is a strong suit for the RS e-tron GT, offering a 405L boot plus additional storage in the front trunk, making it an excellent daily prospect. The ride is firm in Dynamic mode but remains composed enough for long-distance cruising, absorbing motorway imperfections with ease. Charging is a simple affair, with fast-charging capabilities allowing for 80% replenishment in just over twenty minutes, significantly increasing the vehicle's real-world usability. It is a highly capable machine for routine errands and long-distance touring, provided the driver is aware of the low stance and the necessity of managing battery capacity on longer jaunts.
The C192 has a rear luggage compartment accessed through a large hatch. The manufacturer lists 321 litres, expanding to 675 litres with the applicable rear-seat configuration. The optional 2+2 layout is intended for rear occupants up to 1.50 metres tall.
Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Audi RS e-tron GT — 405L boot plus 84L frunk; 489L total — excellent for this class; the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe — The C192 has a 321-litre luggage compartment, expanding to 675 litres with the applicable rear-seat configuration.. Characteristic of the Audi RS e-tron GT: Charging infrastructure well matched to long-distance grand touring. For the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe: Comfort mode genuinely softens the GT for road use. that means 350 litres of boot space against 321, plus a usable front boot in the Audi RS e-tron GT, and everyday running costs that favour the Audi RS e-tron GT at the pumps.
Ownership: Audi RS e-tron GT vs Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe
Ownership of this EV is relatively straightforward, as the simplicity of the electric drivetrain results in lower annual maintenance costs than its internal combustion rivals. The four-year, 50k mile warranty provides a solid foundation for peace of mind, though long-term battery health remains a key consideration for high-mileage users. The RS e-tron GT benefits from the extensive Audi dealer and charging network, making it one of the most accessible high-performance EVs on the market. While residual values for luxury EVs remain volatile, the model’s performance and build quality help maintain a solid market position among modern, tech-focused buyers.
Owning an AMG GT is an investment in the traditional, high-performance V8 heritage of the brand. Residual values remain strong, bolstered by consistent demand from enthusiasts who prize the V8 character. Servicing is handled through the robust Mercedes dealer network, ensuring that specialists are always within reach, though owners must prepare for high costs associated with performance-grade brakes and tyres. Annual maintenance of £1,600 is standard for the class. Insurance costs reflect the car’s high performance and the complexity of its mechanical components, yet the model remains a prized inclusion in the garages of those who value pure engagement.
Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Audi RS e-tron GT — Audi dealer network strong; RS e-tron GT benefits from broad coverage; the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe — Mercedes dealer network comprehensive; AMG GT well-supported globally. Characteristic of the Audi RS e-tron GT: Lower running costs versus petrol equivalents; EV servicing lighter. For the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe: AMG GT has strong used market demand; values hold well. On the wallet the two diverge at £125,000 versus £155,000 — a £30,000 difference, with annual maintenance of £1,000 against £1,600, and warranty cover of 3 years / 60,000 miles (original UK cover; first 2 years unlimited) versus 3 years / unlimited miles (original UK new-car cover).